Why is the above modded down? The regime is a Baath regime, previously backed by the Soviets, and now by Iran & Hizbullah, while it completes Iran's Shiite Crescent from Iran to Lebanon. The rebels are former Muslim Brotherhood thugs, the same kind as the ones from Hamas and al Qaeda and the guys who just took over Egypt, and who have been massacring or driving out all Christians or non-Sunni Muslims out of the areas they control. First, Assyrian Christians fled Iraq for Syria, and now they are fleei

Syria ranked 105 out of 179 countries on Human Development Index in 2006.Syria is also one of the few Arab countries that have achieved the target of universal primary education. It is showing remarkable progress in achieving other MDG targets: the gender gap in enrollment is small, with gender parity index of enrollment at primary level at 95 percent and 96 percent at the secondary level in 2007.[2] Literacy rate is estimated at 82 percent in 2004 which is also higher than the average for MENA and lower middle income countries (LMIC ). Literacy among youth (15 to 24) stood at 92.5 percent in 2004

Like all Middle Eastern states, labeled as enemies by the US, Syria has a high literacy. So had Iraq (Soviet influence), Iran (Soviet influence), Libya (Soviet influence), South Yemen (Soviet influence), etc.
Unlike Americas illiterate dictator friends: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, North Yemen.
But, the Syrians can deem themselves lucky, now that the US's bearded friends are bringing "democracy" to their neighborhood...

In your above list, Iran was never under Soviet influence. It was one of the countries hostile to both the US and the Soviet Union, and since Saddam was one of the closest allies of the Soviets, that didn't do much for Iran-Soviet relations.

Syria is a secular state by Arab/Muslim standards, no arguing that. As was Iraq. But it's worth looking into the internals of all that. One thing worth remembering is that when a Muslim country calls itself an 'Islamic state', the question comes up of what is the t

I never claimed that the rebels did not include criminals or violent opportunists. But it also includes others, and the Syrian rebellion cannot be compared to common gang activity in stable Western democracies.

Government power was used to shut down the internet in the first place.Probably because they were not powerful enough to force Skype (Microsoft) to let them in said back door, and could not monitor rebel coms.

Never the less, and regardless of any preference for one side over the other, the very act of a government shutting down the internet has become something of a sign of imminent government failure. Its proven to be a desperation move in middle eastern countries, and an unsuccessful move in every case.

'rebels have been fighting governments without the aid of internet communications (or indeed any electronic technology) for thousands of years, remember Spartacus? William (Braveheart) Wallace? Bonnie Prince Charlie, George Washington. The rebels didn't even have the telegraph until the war between the states...

Yeah, but the established power they were fighting didn't have the Internet either. There's an asymmetry of power when the establishment has the ability to cut off a major form of communication that they and the rest of the world retain the advantage of using.

William Wallace and co. would have fared a lot worse if King Edward had ordered the English Royal Air Force jets to pound their positions with precision bombs. And Spartacus against well placed snipers? And Washington against a walkie-talkie coordinated British assault?

William Wallace and co. would have fared a lot worse if King Edward had ordered the English Royal Air Force jets to pound their positions with precision bombs. And Spartacus against well placed snipers? And Washington against a walkie-talkie coordinated British assault?

Or is this some sort of veiled euphamism for the US Civil War, whereby a completely moronic rebellion which wouldn't have occurred if people didn't want to enslave others despite their alleged subscription to a constitution which gave 'inaliable rights to all', thankfully, was defeated by people who have 1/2 a brain, and the losers prattled on about their 'states rights' and other random garbage (all the while passing jim crow

Google [google.be] is your friend. Seriously, I'm not American and though military history is one of my interests, the period between the decline of muskets and the arrival of tanks isn't one of my favourites. And yet, I'm familiar with the phrase.

Aren't all wars between states?

Ummm, no. We had a private one in England back in the 15th century about flowers, and another in the 17th about hairstyles.

This should point out to politicians that you can't un-invent or un-learn a technology just by pulling the plug. There are countless other examples of this ridiculous attitude being unsucessfully used. The "war on drugs". Doomed to failure. Enough people have their own pot plants to re-stock the entire nation in a short time. There are so many ways to get other drugs across the border or even synthesized de novo that you would bankrupt your government trying to shut them all down. But they try. Disarming a population. Doomed to failure. Guns are small and easy to smuggle, and failing that, they can be MADE. Home-made weapons are quite common among the poor, and ammunition is cheap. And even in countries like afghanistan and Iraq, there are people with the chemical knowledge to make their own explosives.

It's the politicians that never, ever learn. The Star Wars quote is quite relevant here, despite the source. "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

People love to complain about politicians and don't get me wrong, we definitely have our fair share of unethical and dumb politicians but for the most part politicians will just spout whatever they think gets them reelected, so I think most of the anger towards politicians I hear on a daily basis is misplaced. Let's use your war on drugs example. A marijuana legalization ballot failed in Oregon, which has a far more liberal attitude towards marijuana than most states. A medical marijuana ballot initiative f

The lack of the internet actually would make it harder to monitor the rebels communication. With the internet they'd know who is using Tor and who is communicating in encrypted form. Without the internet it will be much harder now because the communication methods will go much deeper underground and will be just as efficient as before but harder or impossible to trace.

The internet being cut off actually keeps the media from foreign countries from being able to monitor the situation but it doesn't greatly effect the situation because I am sure the rebels and syrian government both would be smart enough to have redundant forms of communication.

Terrorists ? Do you mean the ones flattening cities with planes, helicopters, artillery ? The ones unleashing thugs on innocent villages ? The ones that started this mess by torturing to death kids for painting graffiti ? The ones even the Hamas don't count as friends anymore ?

We call it "humanitarian bombing" now. And I've noticed that all our pro-war mods have taken sides. Don't criticize the 'rebels'. They are 'liberators'. From what, who knows? But I'm sure our governments have all sorts of weapons contracts waiting to be signed by the customers with a better credit rating than the present regime. Fucking sick!

Ah, ever the good troll you are. We can always depend on that snappy comeback. So, why aren't you over there, fighting the good fight? Much better to do it from your comfy chair while chowing down on that warrior jizz. Eh, whatever, since I wasn't even talking to you, no further response is necessary.

Don't know what you mean. I'm merely pointing out how fanatics react to criticism of their idols, and that they cannot accept that they are being taken for a ride. This "Arab Spring" is a tragic farce. If recognition of that makes me a mindless cynic, then I shall wear the label proudly.

Pointing out through example? The "Arab Spring" has interesting historical parallels to the European revolutions of 1848 [wikipedia.org] (Wikipedia notes that they came with similar names such as "Spring of Nations", "Springtime of the People"). In the historical example, one saw both good and bad outcomes from that event over the past century and a half, including the eventual spread of democracy throughout all of Europe.

Sure, the Arab Spring may end up being "tragic farce" just as much of the European version did (par

Whatever you say... Events and history are speaking for themselves, much louder than the lies from the propagandists you choose to believe. Until the outsiders quit meddling, or completely conquer the region (again), the "Arab Winter" will not relent, and each year will break new records in the arms trade. Indeed the useful idiot is you.

You just can't help but dig that hole deeper, can you? I point out the obvious historical parallel and you're doing the teenager, "whatevar" act.

My take on this is that peaceful revolts that tend to result in more democratic governments are bad for the arms trade. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc have overturned their old governments without generating a lot of arms sales.

You're still not getting it. These are proxy wars over which superpower has the most influence. If we don't make the deal, the Russians and Chinese will move in. They have nothing to do with "democracy". Fall off your high horse, and count the money.

Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc have overturned their old governments without generating a lot of arms sales.

Still a work in progress. They haven't generated legal arms sales. It's all just more "Iran/Contra"

You're still not getting it. These are proxy wars over which superpower has the most influence. If we don't make the deal, the Russians and Chinese will move in. They have nothing to do with "democracy". Fall off your high horse, and count the money.

This Arab Spring thing is lot bigger than some arms trading turf fight or a superpower scuffle. Things like arms trade, oil, and the superpower games give very powerful outsiders a big stake in what happens. But it didn't start or spread just because someone wanted some more fighter jet sales or a bigger share of the oil market.

*sigh* You have no idea. So obvious to the criminal state you are, and since your posts are based on faith in the state controlled media that has created your impenetrable reality, I can no longer respond, so I will hand the 'brick wall' trophy over to you.

Please stop. You have no idea. Hundreds of millions of people are doing something remarkable. Pay attention. I'm not at all denying that the powers of the world have a stake in the Arab Spring. What I am denying is that the huge political changes of the Middle East are due to the intrigues of these powers.

Gadaffi tried the same thing and the rebels in the eastern half the country reconnected them from the pipes from Egypt and even re-enabled cell phone usage. The northern half of Syria is largely under rebel control with a few bases here and there that are rapidly falling. I am sure in a big city like Allepo there are pipes that flow into Turkey, Iraq, and Lebannon.